Will the Cato Institute Uphold Intellectual Property?

Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
9 comments | Share | Flag

Cato Unbound has sponsored a number of anti-patent articles. This article is typical in that the author is not a patent attorney, does not have a technical background, and makes a number of basic legal and factual errors, but is somehow an expert on patents.

All Comments

  • Posted by $ sjatkins 8 years, 9 months ago
    General principles and specific laws and legal mechanism implementing those principles are not the same thing. Just because one is in favor of intellectual property generally (who isn't?) doesn't mean one is in favor of specific laws and legal mechanisms created purportedly to implement it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 9 months ago
    Libertarians just can't figure out who they are or won't.

    Good essay db.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What a scum you will admit that connections between patent and economic growth, you will not admit that you are subverting the constitution.

    You are the lowest low life.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hey, I'm self interested too. And, yes I am an expert. I grant that Dale is as well. Experts disagree at times. We both work in different aspects of this industry. I think that I am trying to improve the ability of people to create and make great software -- and plenty of money. To be producers. I'm sure Dale feels he is doing the same.

    I'm here because I have a high degree of agreement with the goals of the site and those few things I disagree with are worth discussing. I could spend my time on liberal sites arguing with people who think "You didn't build that" but it's actually more satisfying to talk to people who do want to build things -- and know what it takes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes-you are an expert and dale is self interested. yes. noted. we have called you out. You are not an Objectivist. why are you here?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Seriously, I don't know software? I've programmed for forty five years, been immersed in the industry as it grew and evolved. If it's because I don't buy your software as wiring argument, well I don't. No one who writes software thinks they are wiring a device.

    This is your post so I guess you can hide anything you want.

    I do believe in IP protection I think it's important so your repeated demands that I acknowledge the phrase about the wealthiest countries protecting their IP is something we agree on. We just have different strategies about how to protect IP and encourage technological growth. I suggest that as someone who's run a software company since 1994 I do have a valid perspective on the problem.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 8 years, 9 months ago
    Considering how much the rule of law has been undermined in the last few decades in this country...probably not.
    It will come down to where they figure the most money to take is.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 9 months ago
    Well, it should come as no suprise to you that I agree with much Mulligan's essay. Many of the examples they mention are the ones most troubling me.

    I want to be clear that I am utterly in favor of protecting innovation and intellectual property. I just believe that utilizing copyright law prevents the copying of the work but allows the industry to build on concepts which fuel growth.

    My objection to patents on software would not be as strong if the patent office had limited them to non-obvious solutions. For example the algorithm patented by the LZW patent falls into the non-obvious category. Most others I've read are quite obvious to a skilled practitioner in the field.

    This, of course, brings us to the independent creation argument which says that an independent creator of an idea has just as much moral right to it as any other. If you only patent really unique ideas, this will happen rarely, if you patent the obvious then it will happen every day.

    I find the whole wiring argument one of the kinds of things that lawyers do to try to convince someone that a horse is a cow. Software and electronics are two different things. It would be easy to allow one to be patented and not the other.

    I don't actually know why I typed this, you will probably either hide me or call me names, but I also don't intend to be bullied.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo